Taxing bullets

myp · Dec 23, 2012

Since gun ownership has a negative externality as tragically witnessed a week ago, why not tax it with a Pigovian tax? Or better yet, bullets. And even better, let's use the tax money to improve mental health services in the country.

Could be part of a broader plan to hinder events like last week's. Thoughts on this?

bluefig · Dec 23, 2012

I'm against it. I think murderers and crazy people will always find ways to kill people.
I think this proposal would prevent poor people from buying ammo, when they often need it the most, living in high crime areas. Do you think poor people should be disarmed in a disproportionate way? Or are you now going to propose a sliding scale on the tax and penalize people who pull themselves/keep themselves out of poverty?

I'm also interested in what improved mental health service would look like in your opinion? Any proposals?

myp · Dec 23, 2012

Well I don't think the first option for a person living in a dangerous area should be to reach for their gun first of all. It should be the very last option. Also, if the tax impacts the poor more then it will probably impact the criminal poor too, not just the victim.

As for mental health improvements- greater outreach for one. Greater education would also do us wonders, especially in teaching people that mental illness is a sickness that can be dealt. Attempting to remove the negative social stigma currently attached to mental health patients would be a good thing too.

bluefig · Dec 23, 2012

Hmm, I tend to think poor criminals just steal what they want and will not have a problem paying the tax with the profit from their ill-gotten goods, especially if they are stealing ammo, most likely from "richer" criminals they know and hang out with!

I've lived in poverty before and retain friendship with many poor people and I can attest to the fact that they use their firearms to defend themselves. These incidents do not get reported as they usually involve unstable family members, friends or neighbors - complicated relationships. Not to mention a fear of the police and legal system that poor people develop due to the shortcomings of our so-called "justice" system. Poor people know one thing clearly: the police cannot help them until after they have been harmed and then it is often too late and police involvement often worsens the situation.

Outreach? What does that term mean?

Education: Do you think violent mentally ill people can be taught anything?

Stigma - not touching that one, it's the "society made me do it" defense.

clax · Dec 23, 2012

Perhaps you mean negative impact, that makes a little more sense.

Gun ownership has no negative impacts so long as all the safety procedures are met. The negative impact that involves guns is that criminals can use them offensively. Taxing bullets will only make the cost on non criminals higher. criminals will simply pay the tax, they can still commit crime.

we don't need pigovian taxes, it wouldn't have had a single impact on crime, I can produce my own ammo anyway, in fact I do.

The solution for violent crime isn't dealing with weapons, its dealing with criminals.

myp · Dec 24, 2012

bluefig said:
Hmm, I tend to think poor criminals just steal what they want and will not have a problem paying the tax with the profit from their ill-gotten goods, especially if they are stealing ammo, most likely from "richer" criminals they know and hang out with!

Even if that is the case, this makes it harder. You can say that for any Pigouvian tax anyway, doesn't meant they aren't effective at reducing or penalizing negative externalities.

bluefig said:
I've lived in poverty before and retain friendship with many poor people and I can attest to the fact that they use their firearms to defend themselves. These incidents do not get reported as they usually involve unstable family members, friends or neighbors - complicated relationships. Not to mention a fear of the police and legal system that poor people develop due to the shortcomings of our so-called "justice" system. Poor people know one thing clearly: the police cannot help them until after they have been harmed and then it is often too late and police involvement often worsens the situation.

Most likely those situations are with people in the same or similar socioeconomic class, no? A bullet tax would effect them all and keep the playing field pretty much even.

bluefig said:
Outreach? What does that term mean?

Increased, free help programs and awareness of said programs.

bluefig said:
Education: Do you think violent mentally ill people can be taught anything?

By education I meant education of the populous, not just the mentally ill. There is a negative stigma around mental health and it is an unfortunate one that leads mental health patients to think the way they are is their fault- that often isn't the case.

bluefig said:
Stigma - not touching that one, it's the "society made me do it" defense.

It's really not. It is quite true. My profession is in the healthcare field- go ask any doctor or pharmacist how the social stigma and stereotyping of the populous at large affects their jobs and in particular their mental health patients. It is quite unfortunate.

myp · Dec 24, 2012

A consideration that has to be made is how much the positive externality of guns is too, especially in comparison to the negative externality. Personally, I don't think fewer bullets in civilian hands would do much harm- it might actually do some good, hence this proposal.

clax · Dec 24, 2012

bluefig said:
Hmm, I tend to think poor criminals just steal what they want and will not have a problem paying the tax with the profit from their ill-gotten goods, especially if they are stealing ammo, most likely from "richer" criminals they know and hang out with!

I've lived in poverty before and retain friendship with many poor people and I can attest to the fact that they use their firearms to defend themselves. These incidents do not get reported as they usually involve unstable family members, friends or neighbors - complicated relationships. Not to mention a fear of the police and legal system that poor people develop due to the shortcomings of our so-called "justice" system. Poor people know one thing clearly: the police cannot help them until after they have been harmed and then it is often too late and police involvement often worsens the situation.

Outreach? What does that term mean?

Education: Do you think violent mentally ill people can be taught anything?

Stigma - not touching that one, it's the "society made me do it" defense.

Tax on behavior that people just don't like is called oppression. Dressing it up with meaningless words is a tactic of oppressors.

Make no mistake stealing from people and industry for selfish gain will never fix a problem.

bluefig · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
Most likely those situations are with people in the same or similar socioeconomic class, no? A bullet tax would effect them all and keep the playing field pretty much even.

Increased, free help programs and awareness of said programs.

By education I meant education of the populous, not just the mentally ill. There is a negative stigma around mental health and it is an unfortunate one that leads mental health patients to think the way they are is their fault- that often isn't the case.

It's really not. It is quite true. My profession is in the healthcare field- go ask any doctor or pharmacist how the social stigma and stereotyping of the populous at large affects their jobs and in particular their mental health patients. It is quite unfortunate.

There are no even playing fields among violent criminals and thieves.

No, criminals do not come from or live within the same socioeconomic class.

I am beginning to see a trend with you - a desire for equal outcomes. I am beginning to understand your place along the political spectrum better, I think.

Nothing is 'free" in life or government, least of all. You have not defined what kind of educational programs you would propose. What facts do you want to become widely known that could help the situation? I did not ask what the programs would cost - and there is always a cost.

What do you want to teach the populous about in regards to the mentally ill? If some one is violently mentally ill, should there not be a stigma, at least enough of one that they can be identified as dangerous?

myp · Dec 25, 2012

bluefig said:
There are no even playing fields among violent criminals and thieves.

No, criminals do not come from or live within the same socioeconomic class.

This isn't about criminals and thieves. It is about the poor people you lived with who used guns on a daily basis for whatever reason they used them. Either way, I don't think a millionaire is coming to rob them. This is a silly discussion though- show me the proof that a bullet tax will hurt those people tremendously or even that they use guns daily as a means of increasing their utility. Until there, this is all here-say on your part.

bluefig said:
I am beginning to see a trend with you - a desire for equal outcomes. I am beginning to understand your place along the political spectrum better, I think.

Why do you feel the necessity to stereotype? To assume things that you don't know? Do you feel it that uncomfortable to not know? I am guessing you are not a person of science.

And you are quite wrong in your assumption, I might add. Pretty much the opposite of what I believe in. Good example of why you shouldn't stereotype like that

bluefig said:
Nothing is 'free" in life or government, least of all.

No one made this claim.

bluefig said:
You have not defined what kind of educational programs you would propose. What facts do you want to become widely known that could help the situation? I did not ask what the programs would cost - and there is always a cost.

I am not going to write out a whole Congresisonal bill here for you

- mental health education is terribly poor in much of the world today. Not just mental health, but all health- have you seen health literacy rates? It is a terrible burden to society and the healthcare system that increases costs and perpetuates irrational stigmas.

bluefig said:
What do you want to teach the populous about in regards to the mentally ill? If some one is violently mentally ill, should there not be a stigma, at least enough of one that they can be identified as dangerous?

Thinking of them as dangerous is not a stigma if they are dangerous. Thinking that there is something inherently wrong with the person is. It is possible for anyone in this world to have a chemical imbalance. That is nothing against the person as is often viewed in society- it is just a chemical imbalance, a sickness, somewhat akin to having a vitamin deficiency, etc.

bluefig · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
Increased, free help programs and awareness of said programs.

See, you did say "free."

So, you think across the board taxes on items are not worse off on the poor. Gottcha. I continue to disagree with this as a general point and need no study to prove it as it is simple logic that leads me to see that poor people have less money than rich ones. In this case more expensive ammo means less self defense for the poor. The rich can afford to buy it no matter how much you tax it. The poor will resort to a black market as they do with other highly taxed items they have a need or desire for.

Of course, you are not going to define what you mean about "programs" - the answer is to just create a program that will make you "feel good" about it - we can always read the bill after it has passed to find out what's in it.

I've had my say on this topic and you can call my direct experience here-say - all though this is not a court of law. It is a way for you to deflect attention away from the fact that you avoid defining yourself and speak in generalities which I see is your mode of operation in general. I am so done with the bullet tax issue!

myp · Dec 25, 2012

bluefig said:
See, you did say "free."

Yea, free for the public. I already said the tax revenue could go to fund these programs, so obviously I know they aren't completely free.

bluefig said:
So, you think across the board taxes on items are not worse off on the poor. Gottcha.

Hold on. Where did I say this? You really need to read my posts closer before hitting the reply button

What I said is why is this tax going to hurt them tremendously? Bullets are not necessary to life, you know. And the tax doesn't have to be to the point where they are not affordable- it is just there to offset the negative externality some.

bluefig said:
In this case more expensive ammo means less self defense for the poor.

Lol, how many bullets do you think people go through in the name of "self defense"? And again, defense from what? Criminals? Criminals who themselves are also often poor?

Maybe we need a cultural change away from bullets for the smaller issues anyway...

bluefig said:
The rich can afford to buy it no matter how much you tax it. The poor will resort to a black market as they do with other highly taxed items they have a need or desire for.

I haven't even set a specific figure here, so you can't really make the whole black market argument- it depends on the size of the tax. Either way, a black market in bullets is much harder to create or maintain than a black market in guns- after all, you need continuous manufacturing. That is the reason I am suggesting a Pigouvian tax on bullets as opposed to guns.

bluefig said:
Of course, you are not going to define what you mean about "programs" - the answer is to just create a program that will make you "feel good" about it - we can always read the bill after it has passed to find out what's in it.

If public awareness programs and increased mental health literacy doesn't mean anything to you, then whatever. You can think what you want. I am not going to waste my time detailing a whole program here for you. This is an online discussion, not a Congressional lawmaking session. We are having a casual discussion, not an official one

But you are being way too political (and hence less logical- that is not an insult; such is the nature of politics) here than I had hoped the responses would be. I made this thread in the economics forum for a reason. I don't care about your ideology, I am here to discuss facts and logic.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

I seriously doubt the killer was thinking about how expensive bullets are when he shot up sandy hook.

Taxing bullets only makes the practice of honing shooting skills more expensive. Most shootings are done at very close range, so target practice isn't of any need for gun wilding criminals.

You can't tax crime away, I think we really need to understand why our culture is so violent, accept that it is indeed violent.

But punishing everyone that follows law, with law, for the crime of those that don't respect the law is abuse of people, abuse of power and misuse of law to produce no end to the gun violence.

If your goal is to stop law abiding non violent citizens from bring able to handle their guns competently due to the high cost of practice and training then i guess this works.

Most people that commit assault or threats with guns don't have legal income, they either steal or engage in illegal commerce, it just means they will do more of this activity.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

This isn't about the killer thinking about the expense of bullets. Everything is marginal- including willingness to buy. This is a classic example of a Pigouvian tax. Much like the reasoning behind an alcohol tax or a tobacco tax.

If the tax isn't crazy high, you probably won't have a black market (again look at tobacco and alcohol) and even if you did, to manufacture bullets is presumably quite hard if you want to maintain quality.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

Let me add for those who are perhaps not familiar with Pigouvian taxes, that the basis for such a tax is to correct for the negative externality of natural market activity. Externalities are effects that the buyer or seller does not necessarily feel (or feels a disproportionate amount of) hence leading to them not including the costs of those effects into the agreed price of sale.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
This isn't about the killer thinking about the expense of bullets. Everything is marginal- including willingness to buy. This is a classic example of a Pigouvian tax. Much like the reasoning behind an alcohol tax or a tobacco tax.

If the tax isn't crazy high, you probably won't have a black market (again look at tobacco and alcohol) and even if you did, to manufacture bullets is presumably quite hard if you want to maintain quality.

I manufacture my own ammo, cheaper, and more precise. Ammo that is mass produced has a larger variance of quality, after learning how to do it, I Erroll never buy mass produced ammo again. The reason people buy manufactured ammo is the same reason they buy anything manufactured. Either the time consumed manufacturing something, or the knowledge to manufacture it.

All of the competitive shooters i know refuse to use store bought ammo butte to it's inconsistency, if a factory makes tens of thousands of bullets a day isn't going to be able to focus on quality like the fellow that makes six hundred a week one at a time.

Your tax won't work

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
Let me add for those who are perhaps not familiar with Pigouvian taxes, that the basis for such a tax is to correct for the negative externality of natural market activity. Externalities are effects that the buyer or seller does not necessarily feel (or feels a disproportionate amount of) hence leading to them not including the costs of those effects into the agreed price of sale.

If you just say negative impact, you don't have to explain all of this.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

clax said:
I manufacture my own ammo, cheaper, and more precise. Ammo that is mass produced has a larger variance of quality, after learning how to do it, I Erroll never buy mass produced ammo again. The reason people buy manufactured ammo is the same reason they buy anything manufactured. Either the time consumed manufacturing something, or the knowledge to manufacture it.

All of the competitive shooters i know refuse to use store bought ammo butte to it's inconsistency, if a factory makes tens of thousands of bullets a day isn't going to be able to focus on quality like the fellow that makes six hundred a week one at a time.

Your tax won't work

Well it still works because some people buy manufactured bullets. And that isn't a huge issue- I think the vast majority of gun owners probably don't have the time or skill to manufacture their own bullets- the negative externality should there be one gets partially offset with the tax. Take it further and put one on the guns too and moreso.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

clax said:
If you just say negative impact, you don't have to explain all of this.

You don't think events like the shooting CT was a negative externality?

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
You don't think events like the shooting CT was a negative externality?

It was a crime, a tragedy,a mass murder, an assault, a negative event.

A negative externality of what? Poor mental health?

Taxing bullets

Similar threads